Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Kashdan v. George Mason Univ. (4th Cir. June 13, 2023)

    Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of psychology specializing in human sexuality studies at George Mason University (GMU), brought Title IX, due process, and First Amendment claims against GMU and multiple officials after he was disciplined for creating a hostile educational environment for four female graduate students. The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of his Title IX claims, finding that Department of Education pressure to enforce Title IX was insufficient to show anti-male bias, and his allegation that GMU does not investigate female professors for similar conduct was conclusory. It affirmed dismissal of his due process claim, finding that GMU’s temporary disciplinary sanctions limiting his teaching and clinical privileges did not amount to a significant demotion and did not exclude him from his trade or calling. It affirmed dismissal of his First Amendment claim, finding that his personal stories and questions about his students’ sex lives were speech outside of his curricula and topics of purely personal interest.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    Doe v. The Citadel (4th Cir. June 12, 2023)

    Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former student at The Citadel, brought Title IX and due process claims against the College and multiple administrators after he was expelled for sexual misconduct. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s due process claims against the individual defendants, the Fourth Circuit declined to hold that the disciplinary board violated his due process rights when it stopped his representative from cross-examining the complainant about her memory, noting that he was afforded notice, a hearing, and an opportunity for appeal. Turning to his Title IX claim, the court held that he failed to connect either the generalization that most complainants are female or the 2011 “Dear Colleague Letter” requiring compliance with Title IX to any facts suggesting sex discrimination in his case.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Sexual Misconduct | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Speech First, Inc. v. Sands (4th Cir. May 31, 2023)

    Opinion affirming denial of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff, Speech First, a national free speech watchdog group, sued Virginia
    Tech and sought a preliminary injunction, alleging that Virginia Tech’s Bias Intervention and Response Team (BIRT) Policy (Bias Policy) and Informational Activities Policy violate the First Amendment. In affirming denial
    of an injunction related to the University’s Bias Policy, the Fourth Circuit first held that Speech First failed to show injury in fact, noting that the BIRT lacks the authority to punish students, and its process is not “so
    burdensome that an objectively reasonable student would self-censor to avoid encountering it.” Instead, it found that through its Bias Policy, the University permissibly “devised a way to educate its student body about
    both protected speech and the role of tolerance in the campus community.” Turning to the University’s Informational Activities Policy, which required students to use a content-neutral administrative process to reserve
    space before distributing literature or petitioning, the court similarly affirmed that the record was too incomplete to show that the challenged policy amounted to anything other than a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    Knox, et al. v. Georgia (Ga. May 31, 2023)

    Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiffs, five professors in the University System of Georgia, challenged a 2017 statutory amendment removing public colleges and universities from the definition of a “school safety zone,” alleging that the amendment unconstitutionally infringes upon the Board of Regents’ constitutional authority to govern, control, and manage the System and its member institutions. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed dismissal, noting that the Board had adopted a gun policy consistent with the statutory amendments. Because it was Board’s action that authorized the policy at issue in the complaint, the Court held that the professors’ case against the State is moot.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Second Amendment & Guns on Campus

  • Date:

    Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 73 v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. (C.D. Ill. May 22, 2023)

    Order & Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the union representing groups of service employees at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, brought a First Amendment challenge after the University’s Board Secretary denied their requests to speak during a public comment period of an upcoming Board meeting. The Secretary cited a rule that the Board does not hear presentations on issues under negotiation in the collective bargaining process. In denying the Board’s Motion to Dismiss, the court first held that the public comment period was a limited public forum, noting that requests to comment must be approved by the Board Secretary and that comments are limited to topics under the Board’s jurisdiction. It then held that though the rule was neutral as to viewpoint, it was not reasonable in light of the Board’s asserted purpose of avoiding unauthorized agreements outside of the collective bargaining process that would violate state labor law. In this, it noted both that it would be hard to forge an unauthorized agreement in an open meeting and that the danger is greater in direct email correspondence, which the Board had suggested as an alternative way for the public to address the Trustees. The court, however, dismissed plaintiff’s state Open Meetings Act challenge for lack of jurisdiction. 

    Topics:

    Collective Bargaining | Constitutional Issues | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Governance

  • Date:

    Countryman-Roswurm v. Muma (10th Cir. May 15, 2023)

    Order and Judgment reversing denial of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and remanding. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of social work at Wichita State University and Executive Director of the University’s Center for Combating Human Trafficking, faced harassment from a colleague who allegedly spread rumors that she had secured her dual appointment through sexual favors. Among other claims, she alleged Equal Protection violations under §1983 against the University’s Provost, asserting that after responding inadequately to her initial complaint, he terminated her contract with the Center when she reported continued harassment. The district court denied the Provost’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that precedent forbids a supervisor’s acquiescence in sexual harassment. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that because the University had already launched an investigation, its precedents did not clearly establish that the Provost’s response amounted to acquiescence.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

  • Date:

    Police v. Navarro Coll. (N.D. Tex. May 10, 2023)

    Order and Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff, an African American student at Navarro College who lived in a campus dormitory, brought Fourth Amendment claims under §1983 against the College and one of its public safety officers following an interaction that began at an off-campus apartment complex. Observing plaintiff and another student sitting outside smoking a cigar, the officer stopped them, found that plaintiff had an empty cylindrical tube that smelled of marijuana, searched a nearby exterior stairwell, and then searched their on-campus dormitory rooms. The court granted the Officer’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s illegal seizure claim up to and including the search of the stairwell, finding the allegations consistent with a Terry stop supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion. However, plaintiff sufficiently alleged that his extended detention amounted to an unreasonable seizure since the officers continued to detain him despite having unearthed no evidence of criminal activity. Plaintiff also sufficiently alleged that officers abridged his Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully searching his on-campus dormitory room without a warrant or consent. Plaintiff’s claims against the College failed, however, for lack of factual allegations of a policy or widespread practice of similar behavior.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Fourth Amendment & Search and Seizure

  • Date:

    Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ. (Cal. App. Apr. 27, 2023)

    Opinion affirming-in-part and vacating-in-part summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff is a former tenured professor at Santa Clara University (SCU) who was terminated after a faculty judicial board (FJB) determined he sexually harassed a former teaching assistant, Jane Doe. He sought mandamus and injunctive relief and damages against SCU and brought defamation claims against both SCU and Doe. The California Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the writ of mandate, finding that although the Faculty Handbook was unclear about procedures for student-teacher sexual harassment cases, plaintiff received a fair hearing, and his termination was supported by substantial evidence. It affirmed summary judgment in favor of SCU on his wrongful termination and contract claims, finding no evidence supporting his claim of discrimination and no procedural irregularities sufficient to show breach of contract. Turning to his defamation claims, the court held that Doe’s complaint, the investigation, and an independent investigator’s report are all subject to the litigation privilege for quasi-judicial proceedings. It reversed summary judgment, however, as to statements Doe made to a witness prior to her complaint, which plaintiff testified were fabrications. This, the court held, created a triable question as to whether (1) Doe knew the statements were false and (2) the common-interest privilege she asserted over them was negated by malice.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Sex Discrimination | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Rudman v. Oklahoma (W.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2023)

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student and member of the Cheer Team at the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO), brought deliberate indifference, retaliation, equal protection, and due process claims against UCO and its Senior Director of Student Engagement who oversaw UCO’s Spirit Teams, stemming from an off-campus, “unofficial” Cheer initiation event at which new members were allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation and harassment hazing. The court permitted her Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the University and her §1983 equal protection claim against the Senior Director to proceed, finding she sufficiently alleged that the Senior Director had knowledge of similar conduct at past unofficial events and “consciously acquiesced in that conduct by refusing to respond reasonably to it.” However, it dismissed her §1983 due process claims against the Senior Director, finding that (1) the factual allegations were insufficient to allege that she deliberately created an intolerable environment on campus in order to force plaintiff to leave UCO and (2) plaintiff had not shown that a right against “constructive expulsion” was clearly established.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | Retaliation | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Felkner v. R.I. Coll., et al. (R.I. Apr. 20, 2023)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of Rhode Island College. Plaintiff, a former student in the Master of Social Work Program at Rhode Island College who describes himself as a “conservative libertarian,” brought First Amendment claims against the College and multiple officials, alleging that his instructors rejected several advocacy project proposals aligned with his political perspective and then retaliated against him by assigning poor grades and by granting him only one conditional extension on the due date for his final project. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that plaintiff’s claim was barred by qualified immunity, noting that in the context of the “great deference” afforded to “academic decisions concerning grades, coursework, and progress within an academic program” it would be unreasonable to expect that faculty would have “had fair warning that their conduct potentially violated his constitutional rights.”  

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation | Students

NACUA Annual Conference

Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.

Register